100 years Null-Serie

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/11/2025 at 8:19 AM, Roland Zwiers said:

It is crucial that native readers of German, like UliWer, do a double-check!

Now in 2023, during our visit to the Leitz archive in Wetzlar, I had some time to look at the box with early Oskar Barnack negatives.
To my great delight I found negatives that may correspond to Oskar Barnack's handwitten notes relating to March-April 1914.
One negative that was obviously taken with a panorama camera.
And several negatives that must have been taken with the Ur-Leica.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

This Zeppelin negative with the 35mm panorama camera may very well date from March-April 1914 as there is a corresponding note in Oskar Barnack 's Werkstattbuch. The German accompanying text reads:

Kamera wurde 1918/19 versteckt vor der interallierten Kontrollkomission, dann aber nicht mehr aufgefunden.

Translation:

In 1918-1919 the camera was hidden from the inter-allied (so Britain, France, Belgium, USA) inspection committee, but could not be found again afterwards.

This raises interesting questions again!

I didn't know that these inspections were carried out as far as in Wetzlar! Was the whole of Germany investigated so as to completely dismantle the production of arms? I assumed that the occupation of the Rhineland had sufficed already. On the other hand we know that Leitz produced military equipment during 1914-1918. So, the victors of the war may have been entitled to inspect the Leitz factory in Wetzlar.

When was the panorama camera re-discovered? The note was written before that. So this may help with dating the note. And so with dating this copying project.

Roland 

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Roland Zwiers]

55 minutes ago, willeica said:

It won't be possible to do all of that in the coming week as Leica will have about 800 guests on site.

What we do know is that some of the negatives which they have are in the approx frame dimensions of the Ur-Leica negatives. Early films often contain no film type information in the margins. Even as late as 1950 the bulk film used for my 'Swiss Photos' only indicates that it was Perutz film and nothing further. Depending on the copying techniques used, the frame sizes in the copied images may be different from the original.

I think the most we can expect at this stage is to have a general discussion about what is there and what is already known. The objective would be to determine which images had been taken using the Ur-Leica and which were copies. The most recent 'find' is in the US and not in Wetzlar. As I understand it, that roll is with Mark Osterman.

William 

55 minutes ago, willeica said:

It won't be possible to do all of that in the coming week as Leica will have about 800 guests on site.

What we do know is that some of the negatives which they have are in the approx frame dimensions of the Ur-Leica negatives. Early films often contain no film type information in the margins. Even as late as 1950 the bulk film used for my 'Swiss Photos' only indicates that it was Perutz film and nothing further. Depending on the copying techniques used, the frame sizes in the copied images may be different from the original.

I think the most we can expect at this stage is to have a general discussion about what is there and what is already known. The objective would be to determine which images had been taken using the Ur-Leica and which were copies. The most recent 'find' is in the US and not in Wetzlar. As I understand it, that roll is with Mark Osterman.

William 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

58 minutes ago, willeica said:

It won't be possible to do all of that in the coming week as Leica will have about 800 guests on site.

What we do know is that some of the negatives which they have are in the approx frame dimensions of the Ur-Leica negatives. Early films often contain no film type information in the margins. Even as late as 1950 the bulk film used for my 'Swiss Photos' only indicates that it was Perutz film and nothing further. Depending on the copying techniques used, the frame sizes in the copied images may be different from the original.

I think the most we can expect at this stage is to have a general discussion about what is there and what is already known. The objective would be to determine which images had been taken using the Ur-Leica and which were copies. The most recent 'find' is in the US and not in Wetzlar. As I understand it, that roll is with Mark Osterman.

William 

 

William,

You are absolutely right.

My contributions with the several possible working hypotheses have the purpose of identifying the playing field:

 

What negatives are still original nitro-cellulose based negatives. After 110 years these must be very rare. And surviving negatives may be in very bad condition.

 

Even in 1914-1920 it was well known that nitro-cellulose was not stable and likely to disintegrate. So in cinematography there was early demand for copying on safety film. Did Oskar Barnack use these facilities or would he do copying work himself?

 

Did he invent his own copying devices or did he modify already existing equipment?

 

When did he begin to copy his own negatives? Did he at first aim at completeness? Or did he make selections from the very beginning?

 

What numbering systems did he use?

Or we're these hand written numbers made by someone else, possibly after Oskar Barnack had passed away?

 

AFAIK we are at the beginning of a new research chapter. So it is important to agree on the relevant questions, the identification of the playing field. Then it is easier to place new information in context.

 

Please count me in for this research project!

 

Roland 

[Carlos cruz]

2 hours ago, willeica said:

The objective would be to determine which images had been taken using the Ur-Leica and which were copies. The most recent 'find' is in the US and not in Wetzlar. As I understand it, that roll is with Mark Osterman.

Actually it can be done in several ways, first through perforation pitch and shape analysis, there were several different standards especially this early in film industry, which makes it easier and worse at the same moment. On one hand it makes easier to pin point the moment in time when the change occurred on the other hand we have to have a base knowledge of what standard  was used by different negative producers in given time and area. I highly doubt there’s a reliable source that will give you all technical specs used by different producers in the early XX century. Maybe physico-chemical analysis of the film base would give some answers. But given the lack of data on this topic it would rather open another bottomless pit. Perforations shape and pitch probably was a  version of BH but it has changed subtly throughout years and probably varied depending on manufacturers. (film manufacturers back in the day didn’t bother to imprint any info over or between sprocket holes) I suspect that during the Great War production of film base was deemed strategic and probably there were some differences on both sides of frontline, but again lack of data and research on German/ allied film base production differences stops us there. The dead giveaway for nitro vs safety film apart from flammability would be a pitch  between sprocket holes “ This distinction arose because early nitrocellulose film base naturally shrank about 0.3% in processing due to heat (…)” the pictures of the negative strips on this page are not good enough even for rough analysis. But it gives us a lead how to differ nitro based negative from safety one.

Another direction of research can base strictly on pictorial evidence, but  given the scarcity of material for comparison and probably lack of exposure and processing data  (developers, developing times, temperatures etc) I wouldn’t  put too much trust into it. 
Negative copying process in those times would inevitably lead to steeper gamma on a copy. 

The complex analysis including spectrographic, chemical, microphotographic evidence probably would give us a definitive answer, but I find it hard to  believe that anyone would deem it worthy investing time and resources to find out. 

 

[willeica]

4 hours ago, Roland Zwiers said:

 

William,

You are absolutely right.

My contributions with the several possible working hypotheses have the purpose of identifying the playing field:

 

What negatives are still original nitro-cellulose based negatives. After 110 years these must be very rare. And surviving negatives may be in very bad condition.

 

Even in 1914-1920 it was well known that nitro-cellulose was not stable and likely to disintegrate. So in cinematography there was early demand for copying on safety film. Did Oskar Barnack use these facilities or would he do copying work himself?

 

Did he invent his own copying devices or did he modify already existing equipment?

 

When did he begin to copy his own negatives? Did he at first aim at completeness? Or did he make selections from the very beginning?

 

What numbering systems did he use?

Or we're these hand written numbers made by someone else, possibly after Oskar Barnack had passed away?

 

AFAIK we are at the beginning of a new research chapter. So it is important to agree on the relevant questions, the identification of the playing field. Then it is easier to place new information in context.

 

Please count me in for this research project!

 

Roland 

Testing for nitrocellulose will only give you an approximate date, whereas measuring the frame size is more likely to indicate the use of the Ur-Leica. I have some indications that this measurement has been done already for some of the negatives in the archive. How were films copied? There are a number of possibilities including the ELDIA which was introduced in the late 1920s. It was for doing contact prints and transparencies, but there is no reason to believe that this was not used to produce a copy roll of negatives.

https://oldcamera.blog/2022/11/26/leitz-eldia/

https://silfver.blogspot.com/2007/01/eldia-interesting-and-quirkybut-is-it.html

What size were the copies? The red window at the back was 38 x 30mm - note the one on the first link seems to have been set up to do half frame. Note also that the copying film must be suitable for red-light use. I don't have one of these devices and I have never used one, but I am now thinking of getting one just to satisfy my curiosity.

2 hours ago, Carlos cruz said:

Actually it can be done in several ways, first through perforation pitch and shape analysis, there were several different standards especially this early in film industry, which makes it easier and worse at the same moment. On one hand it makes easier to pin point the moment in time when the change occurred on the other hand we have to have a base knowledge of what standard  was used by different negative producers in given time and area. I highly doubt there’s a reliable source that will give you all technical specs used by different producers in the early XX century. Maybe physico-chemical analysis of the film base would give some answers. But given the lack of data on this topic it would rather open another bottomless pit. Perforations shape and pitch probably was a  version of BH but it has changed subtly throughout years and probably varied depending on manufacturers. (film manufacturers back in the day didn’t bother to imprint any info over or between sprocket holes) I suspect that during the Great War production of film base was deemed strategic and probably there were some differences on both sides of frontline, but again lack of data and research on German/ allied film base production differences stops us there. The dead giveaway for nitro vs safety film apart from flammability would be a pitch  between sprocket holes “ This distinction arose because early nitrocellulose film base naturally shrank about 0.3% in processing due to heat (…)” the pictures of the negative strips on this page are not good enough even for rough analysis. But it gives us a lead how to differ nitro based negative from safety one.

Another direction of research can base strictly on pictorial evidence, but  given the scarcity of material for comparison and probably lack of exposure and processing data  (developers, developing times, temperatures etc) I wouldn’t  put too much trust into it. 
Negative copying process in those times would inevitably lead to steeper gamma on a copy. 

The complex analysis including spectrographic, chemical, microphotographic evidence probably would give us a definitive answer, but I find it hard to  believe that anyone would deem it worthy investing time and resources to find out. 

 

Some great points there, including the ones about the shape and pitch of the perforations and also taking a test snip from rolls, but it would be up to the owners to decide whether this was worth the bother, as you say. Mark Osterman who worked for the Eastman Museum would have the knowledge base to address some of these issues and I believe that, in another context, he has been in touch with the Leica Archive. I intend to get in touch with Mark again when I get back from Wetzlar. 

William 

[Carlos cruz]

Before asking for some test strips to be sacrificed I’d start with asking Wetzlar Archive to provide flat pictures/scans of said negatives (with perforations etc)  it would facilitate some of non invasive procedures- measuring sprocket holes, shape, pitch and shrinkage, the actual picture area (I suspect that image border area could be matched to specific camera, as being MANUfactured probably differed from specimen to specimen) It would be great to have Kodak specialist on board, I believe that Americans had already around Great War big impact on world film industry (BH standard for film perforation takes after American  Bell & Howell around 2000 merged with Kodak)  BH standard must have had really strong position as you don’t hear often about other perforation standards later (KS Kodak standard that was widely adopted in soviet bloc for both negative and copies, whereas the west only used it for copies)   it would be interesting to know manufacturing and distribution processes as they were back in the day. 

1 hour ago, willeica said:

What size were the copies? The red window at the back was 38 x 30mm - note the one on the first link seems to have been set up to do half frame. Note also that the copying film must be suitable for red-light use. I don't have one of these devices and I have never used one, but I am now thinking of getting one just to satisfy my curiosity.

There’s little chance you’ll be able to correctly reproduce the coping process as most if not all of b&w materials in the market now have tinted film base, you’ll just end up with blueish, muddy looking positive print. The coloured base actually was introduced to make copying easier without significant contrast increase. In colour films brownish amber base has similar function but also helps to reproduce greens better. 

[Roland Zwiers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Carlos, William,

Thank you for your comments on the nitro-cellulose film base and the perforations of early Leica films.
As I was not at home for several days, I was unable to give a proper reply.
I fully agree that the characteristics of the available cine negative films on the German market (say 1914-1927) is of crucial importance for understanding the development of the Leica!

So far Leica research relating to the period 1914-1927 has especially focussed on the hardware:
the empirical analysis of early prototypes and lenses.
This subject has been expertly explored by researchers like Ulf Richter, Ottmar Michaely and Hans-Günter Kisselbach.  

For interpreting Leica photography in 1914-1927 three additional routes deserve more attention.

1.       Time line of pictures of Oskar Barnack’s children (so that we can differentiate between Ur-Leica pictures of 1914 and later years).
For this we have to compare as many early childhood pictures as possible.
At the moment one has to look for these pictures in several Leica books.  
AFAIK there has not yet been an effort to arrive at a complete overview.   

2.       Time line and characteristics of available 35mm cine negative films on the German market (especially the period 1914-1927).
This is a research area that I have been pursuing in the last eight years or so.
In this Forum I have already been sharing some of my results.
And I will continue doing so.

3.       Empirical analysis of remaining negatives by Oskar Barnack and Ernst Leitz II.
(dimensions, shape of the perforations, chemical composition, colour of the film base, hand written numbers).
This is a new research area that I would like to pursue with the help of LSI, the Leitz Archive in Wetzlar and this International Leica Forum.
As a preparation for this discussion I will share pictures of Oskar Barnack negatives that I found in the Leitz Archive in 2023.

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

A good way to continue the discussion is to quote a crucial text by Prof. Max Berek.

·       I will first present the original 1948 publication in German.
       (William asked me to share such primary sources!)

·      Then I will provide the translation in English.

·       After this I will step by step place the observations of Prof. Max Berek in their historical context.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Prof. Max Berek (1948)

Translation in English:

 First, we would like to thank the selfless efforts of the Perutz and Agfa film factories, both of which, from the very first appearance of the Leica, supported its efforts to improve film to a very significant extent, even though at the time they could hardly have expected any significant business from this.
O. Barnack initially worked with so-called Fliegerfilm because its fine grain met the requirements; however, this film was not very durable and had to be used up relatively quickly. However, even the first Leica buyers could be given an equally fine-grained but durable orthochromatic film instead.
This was quickly replaced by panchromatic film.
Finally, the culmination of this development was the colour film, which undoubtedly represents the future. (…)

[Roland Zwiers]

Now it is important to analyse and discuss Prof. Max berek's observations step by step.

It begins with his gratefulness in general to both Perutz and Agfa for improving their films for Leica photography.

For Perutz this applies to the period after March 1925, so after the introduction of the Leica.
For Agfa it applies to both the period 1915-1918 and to the period after 1925.
The following quote refers to the Agfa Fliegerfilm of 1915-1918:

O. Barnack initially worked with so-called Fliegerfilm because its fine grain met the requirements;
however, this film was not very durable and had to be used up relatively quickly.

I will illustrate this in the next slides.

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

The first German aerial reconnaissance camera for cine negative film (Fliegerfilm)

In 1915 Oskar Messter, a German film producer, developed a new type aerial reconnaissance camera for the German airforce.
The camera did not make use of glass-based dry plates, but of flexible nitro-cellulose film.
In German, cameras for aerial reconnaissance photography were called Fliegerkameras.
Consequently, the glass-based dry plates for the traditional  Fliegerkameras were called Fliegerplatten.
When a new film-based aerial reconnaissance camera was introduced, logically the film for these cameras was called Fliegerfilm.

The picture below shows the first film-based Fliegerkamera of 1915.
the German noun Reihenbild means that the picture amounted to a series of overlapping filmstrips.
As this is hard to explain, the next slide helps me out.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Aerial reconnaince picture of 1915, composed of overlapping filmstrips.
The camera for this picture was called a Fliegerkamera.
The film inside this camera was called Fliegerfilm.

As Oskar Messter was a filmmaker by profession, his earliest Fliegercameras made use of unperforated 35mm film.
The Agfa film factory in Wolfen would produce these in lengths of 100-120 meter.
Again, as these films were used inside a Fliegerkamera, these films were called Fliegerfilms.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Roland Zwiers]

There is ample contemporary literature that during 1914-1918 the Agfa factory in Wolfen obtained a monopoly position in the production of 35mm cine film on the German market. 
But in the course of 1915 even the Agfa factory was threatened with close-down.
The main reason was that the army recruited (too) many skilled workers on top of confiscating crucial inputs for the production of film.
The quote below is illustrative.
I will provide the translation in English on the next slide. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Agfa-literature on the 1915 Fliegerfilm.
Translation in English:

In 1915 the ongoing war brought the film factory into extraordinary difficulties, with the continued conscription of skilled workers and a growing shortage of raw materials. (...)

At the end of 1915, a turnaround in the film factory's economic situation became apparent.
Through a petition by the "Association for the Safeguarding of Common Interests in Cinematography and Related Industries" to the War Ministry, it was possible to obtain collodion wool.
The first deliveries took place at the end of December, thus securing the raw material basis for cine film production for the first time.
A second factor also became crucial: a special Fliegerfilm was needed for aerial reconnaissance.
To develop such a film, it was possible to release various specialists from military service, thus averting the threat of the factory shutting down for the time being.

[Roland Zwiers]

Now From Max Berek (1948) we know that Oskar Barnack initially worked with Fliegerfilm.
This has to refer to the Agfa Fliegerfilm of 1915-1918.

"O. Barnack initially worked with so-called Fliegerfilm because its fine grain met the requirements;
however, this film was not very durable and had to be used up relatively quickly."

At a later stage ("first Leica buyers", so around March 1925) there were more durable alternatives for leica-photography:

"However, even the first Leica buyers could be given an equally fine-grained but durable orthochromatic film instead."

These observations are confirmed by the early Leica reviews in March and May 1925.
In the next slide I will discuss the Leica review by Willy Frerk in March 1925.
After that I will present a second early Leica review of May 1925.

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

The Leica review of March 1925 by Willy Frerk

The image below is part of possibly the first Leica review.
editor Willy Frerk may very well have obtained his Leica at the March 1925 Leipzig spring fair.

He mentions that the Leica is delivered with three cassettes that contain 1,60 meter of Toxo-Kinofilm.
This obviously implies that Leitz, for the first buyers of the Leica,  pre-loaded these cassettes with Toxo cine negative film.
In this context it is important to mention that Curt Emmermann received his Leica in february 1925.
In his recollection of 1931 his Leica was pre-loaded as well.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Roland Zwiers]

In May 1925 Editor Frerk made another Leica picture, for which he used the same Toxo-film.
This time it is a picture of his cat.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

 

 

[Roland Zwiers]

Now in May 1925 there is also a second Leica review.

This time the reviewer does not use the Toxo-film, but a newly available 35mm cine negative film by Perutz. 
The reviewer ‘N-n’ prefers this Perutz film because of its high sensitivity to colour.
He does not mention grain explicitly, but confirms yet again that postcard-size enlargements cannot be distinguished from same-size contact prints.

 “Because of the excellent quality of the lens, the negatives in many cases allow enlargements of up to 18x24cm, and even larger when one aims at bromoil prints”.

The said Perutz film made use of the Grünsiegel (green seal) emulsion that had already been introduced on flat film (end of 1923) and roll film (1924).
The Perutz Grünsiegelfilm became a popular Leica-film for amateur photography as well and became known as the Perutz Leica-Film.

In the next slide I will show the full-page Leica picture that accompanied the May 1925 Leica review.
The picture was taken by Anton Baumann.
Unfortunately, it is not specified whether the film used was by Toxo or by Perutz.

To be continued.

 

Roland

 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Roland Zwiers]

Anton Baumann, May 1925, a full-page Leica picture (film unknown)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[sandro]

Roland, it is important to mention the original sources from which you are quoting. In the booklet So urteilt man über Leitz "L:eica-Kamera" (my print is from July 1928) a text by Willy Frerk from Photofreund Heft 6, 20 March 1925 is quoted, without mention of a specific type of film, but not the complete text is quoted of course. So perhaps Frerk got his first Leica before the spring fair 1925 that you mentioned.

Lex